maybe a violent event and construe that into the original act of aggression for which this violence is a defense

The problem with "violent" defense is it's inconsistent with my understanding of "violence" as it relates to the non-aggression principle. Standing guard with a gun isn't a violent act. There's no initiation of force. If someone violently aggresses, that guard might then act, which would be reactive and a direct response to the specific violence. It wouldn't be an initiation.

But even if we could get around that, it's still completely inconsistent. If person A aggresses against person B, then person B is not justified aggressing against person C or the property of person C because of person A. Where is the logic in that? Randomly destroying windows is primitive, tribalistic, mob mentality. It's not anarchist in a philosophical sense. Not that I can see, anyway. There are some early proponents of the "Propagation of the deed" who aligned with early anarchist thought (which was also anticapitalist thought at the time), but I see that as a small minority within what is becoming a larger peaceful, voluntaryist, relational anarchist movement.